The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReso 1989-15296 RESOLUTION NO. 15296 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS - EIR-89-6, SALT CREEK I The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act requires that no project which could result in one or more significant environmental impacts shall De approved without making one of the following finaings regarding that significant environmental impact: 1. The significant impact has been avoided or substantially lessened. 2. Avoidance of the impact is the responsibility of a different public agency, or 3. Specific economic, social, technical Or other considerations makes it infeasible to avoid the significant impact~ WHEREAS, attached are the "Candidate" CEQA Findings and ~_atement of Overriding Considerations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cnula Vista does hereby adopt the "Candidate" CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations attached nereto and incorporated herein Dy reference as if set forth in full.~c Presented by Approved as to form by / /GeorgeFKr~pl,SDirector of ~hg~as J. [F~rr ' City Attorney Planning / 0211a Resolution 15296 PA~SED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 12th day of September, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Moore, Nader, Cox NOES: Counc i 1 members: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: Malcolm, McCandliss ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None ~r~,~>ryOR. Cox, Mayor ATTEST: B verly A~ Authelet, City clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15296 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 12th day of September, 1989. Executed this 12th day of Septmeber, 1989. Beverly ~. Xuthelet, CityvClerk SALT CREEK I SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89-6 CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ZMPACT REPORT NO, B9-6 .... OVERRZDZNG CONSIDERATIONS, PRE PARED Et, lV ! RO NMENTAL ,- OUAL ! TY, :'{PUB,RES,CODI CEQA' GUXDELZNE$ (14 CAL,AD14IN,CODE $$15091, . AND THE PROCEDURES OF. THE CZTY OF CHULA VXSTA ,. .,...,,......,..-:.. ,,,:..,..,...,.,- ~' ~'i ~ .~:;'i ":'::.::~.! , !:=i:..'.:i!.i:: :i.'.,..: . . :' .:...' -...:,~ been required ~n or ~nco~o~ated ~n~o ~the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant env~romental effect as 1denrifled ~n .the Ftnal Environmental '.~ Impact Report ("EIR"), . Spec ftc econom~c;?socfal;"ordther consfderattons make tnfeastble the mitlgatlon' measures'oP,pro~ect alternathes Identified tn the? "~' ": -~;.-.. ,~11~Hg:/fi~d{~'~:'~la'~e tO';F~n81 Supplemental EZR 89-6 ~or the -;proposed Salt C~ek'Z proJect. , The proJect's .dtscre~ionBr~ actions tnclude '~1.~,General Plan ~n~ent (General Developrant Plan ~ndment). ' '. =~":'~2j~:,ZOn~Chang~t~;:~"~.R~;~on~g from 0S;1. 0S-2 and BC-2 to RS-7 .~;.':;:~:' :~: ::~ (stngle-fam~ly~"res~denttal).. RC-22 (resldentfal condomfnfums) a~~ ' .;c", ?'. ' ~ :': R~-25 (multi-family restdentfal). along ~th open space (n the OS.., ". ":~.;,' " ....~:?:~':: .~' and 0S-2 designations. - . ~ '~:. · .,.- ':~end~nt'to"the Sectional Pla~'~Y~'~' Area (SPA) Plan ~n conromance ~ ~ with the zoning changes.'..'..' .~ A v ppro al. of Tentative. Tract Map. ) 89-9. which includes the ~ .'-.,' ~ich addresses the entire site .,. the exception of ~o Future Urban areas. .~ .:'.~' ~'tp~posed project would ~sult in a mixture of ) ~sfdential )rid open space land uses. The Salt Creek I pro~ect proposes to satisfy a demand for a variety of housing In the cornunity of Chula Vista. ~ and. as proposed. consists of 550 (181 detached and 369 attached) ~elltng · units. on 65.9 acres. with 14.9 acres of open space. Pro~ect redesign tn : responsu to p.3tenttal impacts to biological and other resources {Alternative D ' ' E '~" ~ .in the IR) would also provide 550 dwelling units (169 detached and 381 attacned)m ~ith 18.9 act-as of open space. > . ... , :.,y. ~.'.~ c~l ..../.j... ,~..!!~L,: . ' ""~ '. contained tn the Ftn81 Supple~nt81 aIR for the Salt Z General :. Plan ~ndmnt~ Zone Change. Sectfort81 Planntng;' ~'..* 'Areo .(SPA) P18n::~ndment. Tentative Tract Hap 8g-9. and Precise' ~Plan/Stte',Plan~"and the ~cord..,ftnds that .changes. have been ncorporated Into the' project whtch mitigate, avotd.' or reduce the . ~, of .::.: Identified ~ tmpacts <,. to ,, Insignificance by masures .~ ~... talehUlled tn the Fln81~Supple~nta1 EZR.. , . · -. . ~nd consfdered contained Ftnal >lemental EZR and the record. ftnds~ thQt~none~;of ~the~ stgntHcsnt ,'~envf~nmnt81 effects ' "'anticf pared .;as s. a .' ~sul*~"' of .'the proposed' project 8~e wfthtn the public agency except for 8tP quallty and '...~': consCde~d the - tnfomatton contained tnthe Ftnal. Supplemental EZR snd.the ~cord. rinds that' no spectftc ,.econ~fc.~'~ soct81. or other considerations ~mke tnfeEstble the mitfgatton masu~s 1denttried fn the aIR. ~e P1 anntrig. Comt sslon Ecknowl edger that these ~c~ended CEQA are~ advisory and do not~b~nd the Ctty Counctl f~ are supported by the ;*~' ado . were developed to,, assure. that the:quality of 11re' enjoyed by the.. ,' Cit~'s ~sldents ls'mSntalned .~tle gr~th occurs. ~at quslt~ of 11re ts '~".~'~ also-Important to those ~o wtsh to*'.'develop wtthtn the Cfty. Zmplemntstlon ' of~ the ~shold/Standards'~program-w111;~.assure' that' sfgntffcant. adverse t~icts Ere'avoided oP reduced through sound phnnfng and that publtc services - arid the ~allty of the envt~ment will be p~served and enhanced. Bssed on these .~shold/standards. changes hsve been Incorporated tnto the project to mtttgate or 8votd enviromental effects.(~.~'~)~".'.,...~ . Chula"~Vts~, tnvolves the proposed develop~nt of 124,2 8c~s of p~per~ located In the Ens~ake Bustness Center of the EastLake Planned Comuntty In Chula~Vlsta, California, .The property Is ,approximately 8 mtles east"of .u.,,:~:,~. d~t~ ChulL vista and 8 miles north of the. United States/Mexican border, , · "":!,. i.,I!.'~.:.'-~'-~'::'~,..'~',,~'' , ;, -':.'.~24::~:~"':~-;,'2'' ': .::"'E:':' ;!~;:,' ,~:~,. e*'p~oJect s~te':h' ~oughly triangular ~n shape. ~tth the Ees~ake '.'..Z,~'~ .~ {hess.Center to the south. the proposed Salt Creek Ranch resfdent~al . ~develo~ent.to the east and undeveloped htlls to the north. EastLake Greens ' ' ":' i,;~'ls to the south.', and the remainder of Chula V~sta and EastLake resfdentfal ~:"~ne~ghbo~oods-l~e farther to ,the west and south. The southwest bounda~ of :~:the p~Ject ~s the p~posed altgn~nt of the future State. Route ("SR") 125 '. ;'~:2'f~ay extens{On; the site (s also bhected by the proposed extension of East ,'..~., .U~"H" Steer, whtch proceeds through the pro~ect site toward the Salt Creek ~.~ Ranch residential developant. An SDG&E easemnt also protides an o en s ace ,4~:channel ~nnlng north-south through the s(te. culminating a~ a tra~smls~ton , ~/%>:-:,:';'~e P~Ject'appl~c~nt'~ro~O~' ~L~'des~gnate the 124.2 acre sfte from ,;.~*. app~va~ of~'l ,P~c~se Ran/$~te P}an ,fo~ the mu~tf-famt~y portion of the' proposed P~Ject.~,~e'd~sc~t~ona~ actions required to be taken by the C~ty . app~ve the-p~posed project consists of a Genera~ P}an ~ndment (Ge~era] '< ';' ~ ~ve~o~nt ~, Ran ~len~nt); ;.8 -Zone Change (P3anned Comun~ty Dhtr~ct ,Regulat~ons:~n~nt)~,.a Sectional Planning Area ("SPA") Plan ~n~nt; 'Tentatfve Tract Hap.(B 89-9) approvall and P~ctse Plan/SIte Plan app~val. ~e p~Ject site ~l encompassed ~fthfn the ~astLake Ranned Comun~y ~ ("the' Eas~ake project")., A ~steP EIR (EIR 8}-03) ~as prepared for the '[as~lke. p~Ject, and cart{fled by the City as adequate and c~p]ete under ', CE~A,: the Sta~ C[QA. Gufde}~nes and the C~t's Envtron~nta} . Revte~ ;' PmceduPes~' on August 24.' 3982 (Resolution No.. ~0995f. . . ,, ~/~"Zn1984;r.~a~Z;~Z~P~Po~ed'~i the ~ntt~.l deve~op.nt phase of the '.~ vetall EastLake p~Ject~*Prfof-to developrant of EastLake Z, the Planned ~0 ' , P}an.:~ ~e Ct~ cePt~fied-SEZR 84-3 as having been prepared ~n accordance ~fth ~CE~A.' the $ta~ CE~A~u~de}fnes and the C~ty's Env~Ponmnta~ Revte~ Procedu~s ~ on ~a~uaPy 29. ~98 (Resolution No. ~39~8). ~ The EastLake Z SPA P}an and EZRa ] ', 83-5~ an~ 84-] constitute ~}evant Pegu}ato~ dockants for thts p~Ject. ~fs property site was contemplated tn 1984 to be part of the EastLake .._Center, portions. Of ~Ich are n~ butlt oP under construction, Zn 1988. ~ due. pr$~rfiy,~. to' geographic ~ orientation and traffic cf~ulatton the p~tpeP~ stte ~as ~destgned f~m c~ercial/emplo~nt ~.: $a open pce uses to ~stdenttal and open space uses, At approxlma~l~ ,.. ,; ., that tt preparation of a General Plan U~date. Scenario IV :: of.,: the :, General ~:; P1 an; Update reflects .. a residential and open space uration for,the Salt Creek X project site;,, The General Plan Update was adopted on Julyi)l,'~.lg89;.~:AlthoUgh Scenario. IV, (s now in effect, it was not yet an officialSdocument'of the City at the time of circulation of Draft SEIR 'and is therefore referred.to as the"proposed" Scenario IV in Draft SEIR During preparat f Draft SEXR 89~6, an alternative to the Salt Creek 'project was created,due to potential significant effects of the project. .,The alternative ts~tdenttfied in Section V of the Supplemental EIR as the 'Design Alternative: Increased Open Space" ("the Design Alternative"). ~rigtnal' p~o'JeCt's. significant while attaining-the project. objectives., The Design Alternative is determined to be 'environmentally superior ,to the'7~ortgtnal proposed project. and is identified in the Supplemental EIR as the "preferred alternative." QA Gul del t ne$ perrot ts an E I R to t ncorpora te all or paCt'of other relevant. documents. The following EIRs have ~rovtded pertinent data for Supplemental EIR 89-6 and have been incorporated reference: ed by City Council Resolution No., lOg95on August 24, 1982. ~,L ,. ) 'certified by City Council Resolution No. llgl8 on January 29, 1985. '! ,'-' OTENTIAL X~ACTS' NITXGATED TO XNSXGNXFXCANT LEVELS V P ~'~?;: -': ~ "'POTENTIAL' SIGNIFI CANT EFFECTS: '.' ~':'~ ' ' 1,'.-'ie'ex)stence'6f'expanstVe soils onslte, ~'7/~.i~ii~. .' ..:< the northern area of the project, ,.?2 . 'aiU'l'~j~;' groundshaklng in the event of slippage of ':'~' '; '-" NITIGATXON MEASURES: .',, The follnwtng:-spectftc types of mitigation measures have been (denttile,4 in Final Supplemental EIR 89-6'. site.'speclfic earthwork package shall be prepared in accordance recon~nendattons of the March 1989 GeoSoils report, indicating f gating any other geetechnical co,lstraints. Onsite excavation of the formational units shall be quantified and ,'deftne-.favorable .select material for structural fills. Select fill soils may.be mixed with the topsoil. alluvial and colluvtal :soils for deep canyon fills. Any export material must have an approved spoil site identified and procedures defined. The investigation and earthwork ~2ckage shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. prior to suance of grading permits. stte,shall~ybe;mtttgated. by adhering to the State' 1976 Unifom' Building Code 6r~ state-of-the-art seismic '~esign parameters of St~ctural Engineers Association of California. C n ut-a d-fill~ slopes'constructed with erosion prone materials (i.e.. granular;~sands'~ofJ }riate: surface" drainage features subject to approval by City. and"shall. he',landscaped ,tmdtately following grading minimize a~ L~erosldn~l damage ~,. frm . surface waters. Drainage 'features shall be installed in accordance with City requir~nts avoid erosion ,during grading:~subJect to onstte inspection and ,~',:,~,'approval bX City staff.,~.~;~; Ex v pans( e'solls 'shall-be..~oved and used in accordance with reco~ndattons of ~e March 198g GeeSoils report. Areas requiring removal and replacement of expansive soils shall be evaluated (for special'.j foundation design.. etc. ) by, the .. geetechnical engineer' the'. site~ specific'tentative grading plan geetechnical ations ' tn~ accordance with City ~ading procedures and encountered tn areas that will ~ceJ!~ll-~.other'surface tmprove~nts shall be ~ved and ~c~p~cted't oFd~F~' ~)ttga~ the. potential for settle~nt. P~cedu~s shall.be dictated ~c(sely on plans ~tch show ~e~ · ~'~site this shall occur. ~.,Ver~fication shall occur through onst~ Cu lo es e u~Pfn s e ~ stab~l~zaUon {~,e,, t s p q n~rtheast side of SR-125, southeast of "H" Street, the pwer tower tn o~n space lot B}, shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant and mitiga~d appropriately during site grading, Eva1 uatton shal 1 be vert fted and st gned i n ~i tten fom at app~prlate"phaseTof grading, '%Found&tioh~;;and:,~':~labs, shall;:~be designed tn a~cordance ~th ~cmndations of the ~rch 1989 GeoSotls report, Design shall be approved by the City, based on the ~pe of soils encountered onsite and subsequent expansion testing, tn accordance with City Code~ *:~"PrloP to~hsuance' of grading pemtts, outcrops shall be assessed "' ~':'~.~';~:'. for rfppabtl~ty and quality fop f~11 material. Any additional :. mitigation s'ha11TM be defined and may be tncluded fn the Investigation, subject to approval by the CIty. ftllS'"shall be const~cted (n accordance ~th slope ' ~ height as:dictated In the GeoSo~ls Batch 1989 report, page 26. Further;; fill'slopes shall be constructed at gradients of 2:1 oP flattere.~?and ~n. accordance ~th Ctty of Chula Y~sta codes, the Unffom ~ Butlding' Code ("UBC") and Grading Guidelines of the GeeSoils Hatch 1989 report (Appendix O of GeoSo~ls repo~t), ~tred In an around Open space Lot "A" shall be conducted specifically fn accordance with methodoleO.: dictated. In the Hatch 1989 GeoSotls report, plans subject to ttae ~;' approval of the C~ty prJor to ~ssuance of grading pem~ts, ~'~ Lots' 62 and 72 ~ha11 be ~verexc ated and reconstructed as shown fn e av .. ~r. Appendix D of the GeoSo~ls Hatch 1989 report. .~.~ .,.., Al1 slopes" Shall be designed and constructed tn accordance with ' ~qufrffients *of the CIty of Chula VIsta codes, the UBC and Hatch 1989 ~-~ .~;','~ '~;~::'ZCj~'~" geotechnf6~al expert and approved b:%the City prtor robIssuance ;?:.;:~.-.~::~,;'All I!'gnltl~n~' tmpactS"Wtll be'~votded'oP eliminated y virtue of mitigation masure$ identified: in the Final Supplemental EXR and changes C $ incorporated into the proJe t a set forth above,, . - . reposed p~Ject fl feasible frma geetechnical standpoint, There appear to Ce no ~fgnfftcant geetechnical constraints onsfte that cannot be mltlgated a level of insignificance by proper planning, design and sound construction pract~c,, The fmplemntatlon of the recomnded mitigation masuPes and ldhe~nce t~ C~ty regulations and pro~ect docments ~11 ensure that all po~nt~al geo~chnfcal effects of the project N~11 be m~t~gated to an (nsfqniffcant level, NO unmfttgable cumulative impacts are anticipated, , ;' ~B~ 'HYDROLOGY/~ATER qUALZ~". pots ' i =ulatfvequa3 ty effect of the project and oth~ dev~lo~nt has been ~dentff~ed ~n the S R, any 'development. urban land uses generate pollurania ' "' EA ~ ~ The fol'l~t '~'~Of mIUgatton measures have bee, Final Supple~ntal EIR 89-6:;?,<.., _. 'pro~ect"shall comply with':'~l'l' applicable C~ty flood control ,' :' PHor to fSsuance~Of>gradfng pemfts~ the proponent shall verify (on drainage plans) to the satisfaction of the Ctty Engineer/Public ~orks Deparment that project peak discharges offsite. to the ~est .northwest,,wf11 be mitigated (by l~mttfng'the increase ~n ,. ex/stlng~flows.· partfcfpaUon In a flood control district.-flood ' ,- ~ Or tnstallaUon of deistream improvements). and w~11 not~ "~ "'., impact the Proctor Valley Drainage Basin. , ~'.' ';7 ~'Oratnage ~lan~or"-the~'proJect (required above) will incorporate- facilities to provide for long-tam* erosion. sedtmentatton and '..,'-,.~ project runoff.; Said plans-shall be subject ' ":.~. ~ approval by the City Engineer or Public Works Oepar)nt, prior :oLtssuance of grading 'pemits.'~,~Suhsequent to project cropleSion Certificates of Use,and ~cupancy),~ these facilities shall be F..' .? ~ inspected for adequacy by a qualified expert approved by the CitX. ,~, _:,.: ~j,' "' '~ '~?~(tnspectiOncost to be at the appltcant's expense) to eniu~ ?< ,".:adequate water quality control in project drainage facilities. ,. .. ~Ject'~shall be in' conromance with applicable water and reclalmd water regulations of the Otay Water District and Sta~ ' '~, ;Regional Water Quality Control Board.'~ /.~ '~-,;'CohSt~Ctton sedfm~ntatton.wtll be controlled by 'adherence to City erosion - control measures. Sedimntation basins and other ~chanlsms shall be. installed as deemed necessary by the ct~ '. ~" Engineer oP ,Publtc~Works Depar)nt. 'to control scouring and :':,,~:'..t~," tnc~ased sedtmnt. loads. , Monitoring during grading shall be ~;:iL.:~.'~-~'~. conducted a~ the applicant s expense to verify adequate erosion ~:-: ~{~, ..,~,~:: control. ( ~~ ' ~ ~ ~' , ,, ',"'..~ .... All significant ~acts will be avoided or eliminated by virtue of mitigation masures Identified tn the Ftna~ Supplemental EIR and changes Incorporated into the ~rolect as set forth above. lmplementaUon of proposed mitigation ~asures.wi31 cnsure.~haLpo.tenttal project-specific and cumulative adverse.hydroIDS. and water quality effects a~ mitigated to a level of insignificance. ,.~ ... ~ t on withe focused Inventory 'for features and tntact ;f~d:~ '. . .~ '~ ~)~': areas, ~-~e data ~covery program shall be conducted ]n accordance ~,:. ,>' ~;~;~>wfth a'~ f~al approach to the ~h]storTc sftes w]th]n Salt Creek .':." ;.~ Ranch . an~ the EastLake, ZIZ/O~p]c , Trafnfn~ Center, ProSects, ~,; ~'~ thereby a11ow]n~ for a comprehensive understandfn~ of these Early ~j~" "~ Period l]tes,-<~,For Lucus E, ; s~te boundary needs to be dete~]ned '. ~, ~ p~sen~ a: letter to the City or Chula Vista fndtcattn ~;~,,'.:~ ? quallffed~paleontologlst has,been retatned ~o car 9 at a. Pr , ~ ~ ~ P o~ or geolo~ ~o fs '~,"/ ~amfllar with Pahontologfcal Procodures and techniques), ~' q~alfffed; ~aleont~logfst ~an~?;a~ha~OlO~tst'~ shall be at the ~"pre-grade metfng ,=to ~ consult~ with ~, the < grading and excava fnal cutting or previously undisturbed sediments of thegOtay ~ ;~" 'Foma~f g Y e 680 fee~ elevatlon), The Sweetwater ~ on shall be montto~d on a half-time basts, Pertodtc ~tndfyfdual who has experience tn the collection and salva e o ~reserved fosstls are discovered. the ,.;;~ .'ontologtst<'(or r Ioglcal monttor) shall be allowed to :temporartly;dtrect.',dlvert~ or halt grading to allow recovery of fosst1:':remafns~.Jna:ttmely manner. Because of the potential for the.: recovertng~.ofj, sma11 .!fossil-remains such as tsolated mama~ be necessa~ to set up a screen-~ashfng operation on durtng any salvage program shalq be cataloged and. then ~fth the oHner's a.:,% scientific institution such-as.the San Dtego Natural HistoW l'~m~nated by virtue of .measures .Jdent~fled~(n~'~the=~, Ftnal ~.Supplemental EIR and changes lncorpora~d;tnto the project a~: s~t forth above.~;,Httfgat~on of Impacts fo~ tmportanta~haeolog~cal~and pahontologtcal resources can be achieved through - , :,'~ ,.;identified'., ~n. the Rnal ~ Supplerental ~ EIR N111 m~ttgate all project and ~cmulathe.,traffic"iffectS~,to an~tns~gn~ficant hvel. The potential traffic .'~',' 'c(~ulat~on~effects' of ~the project.have been m(tfgated tn the follo.~ng '.'~ tted.~n EIR~-84-1,;Sect~on 3.2. ,~-.%mprov~ents pertaining to the~ project, Site c~ involve the -following- roadways. constructed '?~2'~accordance ~ith speculations.~' schedules and financing approved by th~ Ctty Traffic [ngtneer and Planntng D~rector. 7' "' ' '."., " East Street; 6 lane Prf~ Arterial= 4-lane HaJor Street Road: 4-lane Class % Collector Valley by C~ty i~:~:~, , ys:;as'determfned by C~ty ' AsSOciated: ~nterchanges, land dedications and fntersectfon ~mprovements and amentries I1 ~omply with provh~ons establhhed ~n the General Plan :.Update~ C~rculat(on Element and any programs established there{n'~wh(chuare appl~cable to the pro~ect area H.e., fee. ,;progtams;~subsequent traff(c analysfs), Hfttgatton measures In EZR" ~88-2 (Sectton 3,14).and the General Plan Update C~rculatfon Element - Pol~cles/Gu~del~nes~and Roadway Standards (Sections 4 and 5) are :he~by~ncorpoPated'~byj~reference~ future actions on the pro~ec~. s~te.s~alljadhere.to'th'~se" provh~ons fop adequate dr~ulatfon, 'addition the:proJect.shall comply ~lth any applicable traffic a as deemed .appropriate by the C~ty Engineer, ~:~ FINDING~ gntff~ Ided or eliminated by vtrtue of tfgatfon measurosjtdentifted~.~n the~.F{nal Supplemental EIR and changes incorporated into the project as~set forth above,=?~, amendant to various r~gulato~ redesignate the property site from c~mrc{al/emplo~nt park and open:space uses':to.resfdent~al~=and,open space uses, As a resu]t of the }roposed redesignatton~.:::the proJect~wt]] erierate ]ess traffic than the }revtou$ y approved comrcia]/emplo~nt par~ and open space uses; 1 thus, the ~roJect will ,sult~:{n a less significant trafftc,fncrease than the prev{ous, !pproved. SPA Plan;::Const{tuting a comparat{vely: positive impact of the pro Jet;, .com~al/emplo~ent'pe ~ould generate 7,480'average da~ly tr~ps ("ADT"}, ,roposed ~s~dent~al'uses.(181:s~ngle-fam(1y and 369 multi-family units) 4,762 ADT;'.: resulting' .~n a tr~p reduction of 2,718 ADT, As a result, no pro~ect-specfffc adverse effects ~111 result beyond those analyzed and mitigated In previously certified EIR 84-1, ~ , -- a:CmUlat{ve::~st~ndPotnt,~ the project has been ~ncorporated use projections of the General Plan Update, In addftlon, roposed roa~ays ~dent(ffed as crtt~cal to serve projected City development :~.,~,~ the General :Plan Update traffic projections} are now ~ncluded tn the ..:.~;,,~s~te destgn, Spectf~cally,~ San ~guel Road and Proctor Valley Road been added to the proposed s~te design pursuant to C(ty dlrectfon (note that t roads were not (nco~orated tn the prevfously approved SPA Plan), ;POTENTIALS~GNtFICANT ~,~:' :: '.:,: ..,:; n .g .d Cates that fut,.re .o se allof,:the;:slngle-famlly homes and the multi-family units tn the {first ro~ along SR-125~and ,some of the s~ngle-famfly homes and multi-family: ':units:~along East "H",;Street would be exposed ,to.nolse' levels in excess of 65 d ~dB(A)~:CNEL,,;~the City s:extertor notse stan ard.~ Zf unmlttgated. these noise .: levels~ould represent significant notse tmpacts associated wtth the project. gntficant tritertot no~se ~,~;: HZTZ~TZON EASURES ;~,,. , . ~'~ ' ." ~ncorporated ~n~o the'~::~:~' n~ if cant ,~ effects assochted - ~ th ,~ ~xt~rto~ (se~:JmpactS",as rdentlfled ~n the Final Supplemental, :del~neated~tR Tabli 3-5:,and filustrated ~n F~gure 3-10. shall be located a~ the top of slope along the edge of the from Lo~ 27.to LOt 7 and at the to of. slope along the edge of the ~paratfng ~ lots 1-5:= F~:~ SR-125 ~.,(Ftgure ~3-11 ) ~ sha11,~ be ~, continuous with no openf rig,: between ~..,the ~separate. parkfng: blocks~'::~;~Thls .. should serve. aS.,~.' adequate~'notse'=..barrhr fo~multt.famtly Lots 1~5.'.;.~ If the · an addttlonal J~;multtple-famfi~/unlts requiring mitigation should~' be. located at" the: pad elevation. fo~ patfo barriers and at the 2rid ,: ;' fl oo~ ftn t she~ fl ooP el evatton fo~, balcony bat~1 ers..The' ba Prt e~ ~:' . :hefghts' to &ttenuatenolse 'at'thesi' 13 multfple-famfiy 'untts sha11'~:~,,/ provfded as presented tn Table 3-5 and located tn FIgure 3-11.. ' ~OpoS~'n6fi~'~ba~f~rs ;for the stngie- and mul tlple-famfiy~.', ' square foot~ and ~sha11 have no openings o~ cracks. Zt m~ be ,~' ;constru.ted of 1/4 Inch plate glass, 5/8"inch plex~glass. a~ '~ other materf~ls ~ould also be acceptabh tf properly designed as a barrier., Implementation of adequate noise barriers shieldf rig ~stngle-~. and,~;~lttple-famfi)'. outdooP ltvtng areas would reduce i'potentfal notse tmpacts to bel~ a hvel, of significance. . -11-: the not l!:!:butldtng~'attenuatlon~requlrements of greater than 20 ~. se reduction ,levels,, are. achieved by the buildings for · CNEL;'~=The actual-horse attenuation supplled by the buildings f~; ~ell es;'~h, butldtng upgrades required shall be calculated 'when : ~ectu~,l. plans become ~v~l~le, ~ Adequate ~enu~on mus~ be >roved p~o~ ~o hsu~nce of bu~ld~ng'pe~s. -~.~ : qutred attenuatton~adequate ventilation ~tth~tndo~s closed must'.' provtded.~peP the~Untfom:Butldtng Code. All the lots alon~ SR-125 ~East~,~H'' ~'StPeet.".>',and, San Hlguel Road ~tl1 requtr~ requtn~ment~:Reco~endatt~ns:,for the destgn of the venttlatton~c.~ ,stem to~:a~t~nuate notse.leveh ~e provided tn Appendix C. Zf'exter~Ot~'n~he~l~vel~'~'e~cee~':60 'dS(A) CNEL. the project shall c~plY:~th.;State'~of:Cal~fopn~a's :T~tle, 24.. ~equ~r~ng an ~nteP~oP no~se,analys~sto+~on~m that nohe 3evels do not exceed 45 dB(A) CNEL.~,~Deta~led engineering ca~cul~t~ons~tll also be required to .... conff~L:adequate'.~nter~on.nohe levels (pursuant to the C~ty'S, Standatd)~;afteP detatled b~rr~ers3ocat~ons ~nd heights have establtshed;~Bartters~'~to~m~t~gate exter~o~ no~se levels and ~'~'~ ly ~pgraded building materials (as required) ~ould ~duce ~nter~oP nohe tmp~cts to belo~ a level of s~gntflcance. O~ eliminated th above sxtstlng ~roJect"stte preVIously approved SPA Plan ~,~/.:..':~!.' des~gnates>,the ~'property:,:itte; for,=.commerctal/emplo3nnent park -uses. Traffic :' 'generation ~res~.~lttng~'under~.thls, designation tvould be 7,480. ADT, as dhcussed ~; 'the'~Trafffc,and:~C~rculattonSectlon~.ofthts SEZR., The proposed 550 untts~(aS' allowed under+the General. Plan Update) would generate " 4.762 ADT,'; which ;.:( s ' 2,718 - ADT ,~ 1 ass" than the prev~ ously approved SPA P1 an.~ . Thus,~'~mplemntat(on Of,the;proposed project and the General Plan Update would enerate. '.less.~. traff~c.~ and, X, therefore~ .. less ,. notse contribution than ~lon',of,.the,exlstlng General Plan land uses. In other of the proposed project and the General Plan Update ~uld not anttctpatc~ +.o generate addttlonal notse ova,. that estimated tmpl~entatton ol the previously approved SPA Plan. ;~'. PARKS ~RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ~:,,~li . : " "' ~:'~'f~hi ect'~:::b'a~:% been found to ffic:o~l'and.:use: ~Uc, sua~ effec~s':wtth ~espec~ ~o the,i redes~ gnaU on "of the :.: s~ ~e: from' co~c ~ a~/am 1 oymen~ a'nd open space uses, ~o ;~s~denUa~ and open "space~uses.~W~thou~ m~t~atlon o~ app~caUon of proJec~ , ~te~naUve$..f~the,;p~oJec~asi.~:Op~g~na]]y,:p~oposedw~ a~so result, ~n., a: :ppo~ec~-spectftc~a~ cumu]a~v~effec~ to the area's :supply of pemanen~ open' 'space.~ If unm~Ugatedr, and ff~addl~ona~ open space ~s no~ p~ovlded (o~ lte~,;~ offs~t~o~:~vta~pa~en~'of ~n.l~eu }roJec~ and c~u~a~ veopen' ~aC~s ~ou] d. ~esu~ t ' on measures ~dentfffed ~nthe :' a~ ~l{cable plans ~ Shall ?bike lane on East "H" Street. in accordance ~ pen :;'; space .. to: the ;faction of Parks:'~nd RecreaUon Deparment 'aq~ Cit Planning Director ,riot to final. Site Plan approval. ,: : ~:::::~,~/::;,,:/~:'~. proponent shallJ ~rkland' 620 as :y . I ~rkr'~,L and <' Recreation Q requt ramants '..to.. ~e :saUsfactton' Recreation Depar~nt, j..': and a .~.; .conne~t(ons~,'to a~acen~ areas such as Salt. Creek Ranch and EastLake [' natural ~ open ~'space/conservati on ~areas m }::, and, shall be'. subject to ~revtew :and: approval ~ of City. Planning :'and, Parks and Recreation A viw:fence'shall 'be'constructed"a~aCen~"tohomes' frontlng on ~:open space,~tn oPdePto enhance awareness; of the boundary bet~en ~:restdentt~l:'-property and natural open space preservation areas; ~,~'~ Fencing design shall be .approved by the City Open Space Coordtna' :~,~.prtor. to issuance of 9radin9 peruits. -13- open .'areas sha11"'be maintained by an open matnten~'nce ;districts and maintained in a natural state, Where grading"! must ~.occur~. on slopes.adjacent to housing 30 feet.~f 'succulent'or~":Other,'~acceptable ~tdth .and 'plant material shall' be planted~ifollOwed by.a 15-foot DG trail to act as a firebreak, Planting"of native, drought-tolerant low fuel plant material shall' 'provided closer to .the natural open space'areas, (n accordance .with Fire Marshall and City Open Space Coordinator standards, . Alternatlve,~;~The DeSign;Alternative increases onsite open space by 4 ,acres,'tn locations critical for biological resource preservation, The Design 'Alternative also reduces~ open space.tmpacts,-.in combination with mitigation masures;~=toa:.level,.,of,.tnslgntftcance,,~The"applicant has also proposed satisfy .l~cal parkland,~equirements {4,68':acres) by payment of In-lieu fees, within the single-family and gh these recreational amntties a~ project, they constitute unior htgh:.and :tltties;';ipoltce and lftre'protectton, water supplies and facilities, e' mitigated by/adherence ~to ,~applicable City poltctes. and. tmple~ntation mitigation ...'mas'ures~identtfied,~Jn ~ the~ Final ,~ Supplemental EXR, with. the exceptt on. Of, ~ ~,;. umt tt gab1 e.~' ~mul art vet~ effects, ~... The project' s resul unavoidable.~'fnc~ase .~,tn ~the ~demand ';for:, water .:'and non-renewabh ener~ ~resou~es r~p~sents'~'a' ContribUtion .tO ' c~ulative effects on the ~gton ~.ltmited water supply and ener~.. resources, In cmbtnatton with other ongoing development tn the ~egion,:.:~.~,y.~,.~)~:,..... r The.;fO~l~;(~g :specff~ types of mitigation measures have In the Finsl iupplcNn~al_ EIR: suance'Tofbu~ldlng permlts, the pro~ect .will. obtain ~vritten verification from the. Chula Vista t:School DIstrict.and.the Sweetwater Union High School District. proposed to.reside ~n Salt Creek Z will be adequately served ~.ln '.' the ~;distr~cts' :i~ schools, ..~ Zmplementation of th~s at~On '~asure~fil m(t~g~te pro~ectand cmulatfve effects to' school.: facilities and services tO an ~ns~gnff~cant'level, of bufidfng pem~ts, the ~proJect appHcancshall obta~n~r~tten verification from the Chula Vista:Police Depa~ment that adequate police pro~ect~on seduces :~:'be~:ava~lable. to service the Salt Creek Z project, The "';~. ~tothe C~t Chula;Vtsta~sthreshold s~ndards foP:~ ~: and l~on ;~ measure. w~11; ensure ' that ~ro~ effects ~ to pol ~ce protection be m~tlgated to alevel of~ns~gntficance, ~'~'~t =~ approval, a 1 'acre s~ te. station CV'~4 shall be detem~ned to ~the:Chula V~sta Rre DepaP~nt ("CVFD"); C~ty' Director of Planning;' and the Baldwin Company, Z~ appears at thts t~me thatthe~s~te w111 be located on the Salt C~ek Ranch proper (~, Chase~*N~ .1989),~,~ Zf so, a pro rata share of financing sha~ be establ hhed %: foP Salt.Creek: Z p~able to ~ssuance of, bu~ldtng p ~ proponen from the CVFD p~o~':~,;':;-': to_Cer~lqate~ Gf Use 8nd~cupancy, .that adequate fire protection' se~lce ~11 be provtded teethe pro~ect on an (riterim bash and a lonq-tem bash~ ~Th~S ~ncludes adequate ffateP pressure: ~'onsfte~ emr access~ ,adherence to bufid~ng.fire codes of the~ CI~ and t cr~ter~a,~ Fee'paints may be requtred ~.,N~th~.~ C~ty: fmpact~;fees,~.::.,Zmplementatlon of th~e mlt~ga fon'~measures 'Nfil ensure: that/potential' effects to fire protect(on Ntll be m~t(gated to a level of (ns~gnfffcance; ~F~a~U~n'd f~n"~: maps;' the" p~oponent I-sePve .letters;~verffy~ng that ~ateP facilities proposed'.:' ~serv~ce .the:. pPoJect. v~a approve1 by the Ot~ :("OHD") ~: of,~ all · plans and specifications, .'~. ~comndatton$: the NasteP Plan of ~ateP fop Salt C~ek ~:(~tlson [ng~nee~tn Hatch 1989) shall be follo~ed and uttl(zed as" a guideline, ~n consultation ~(th O~D. [~ t~ E~ke'd~S development precedes Salt C.ek Z. a th~Pd prop ~11 be added to the proposed pump capacity, (n ~th;th~Harch:1989'N~s~eP Plan of NateP (~tlson [ng~neePlng), 'e~t:: to ap~roval":'by. the :C~W Eng~neeP prior to Issuance. of. conserver! ~. onstte landscaping and for :~ maintenance of roadside vegetation shall be created and implemented the project proponent..In coordination with the City Public Department and in consultation with 0WD or other qualified later ~.-agency/organizatton. ~ Appropriate conservation measures , ;:- 'include but: are.:,not.limtted to planting of drought vegetation and th~ use of. irrigation systems which minimize runoff measures shall be adhered implementation'shall 'be approved prior to issuance' of Certificates ~,L~-fl~sh toilets' Section 17921 ith~nd Safety Code) 24. Part 6. Article l. T20-1406F)...,,, ~, ,. water line~ in water rectrculattng sys~ms '..~:'~':,~.' ;"~,~/( alifornia Energy Comtsston) - , /'~?;~proposed )lens .: and , s'tandard' ~gulations . will ~ ensure that all potential ,-, proJect ~/, and ~ cumulative .; water'. service impacts' are mitigated'to a level of insignificance., The p~Ject. as with any'/' devalopmnt. will unavoidably contribute to a cmulative demand and effect. on ~,, the,, 1 tmi ted ~ water. sup ly ' fop · the San · Die o 'However,. s ~ec ftc =economic. ~-socia~: or, other. consideratVons make ;tnfeastble...~ 1 me '/mitigation ~t~masu~s ~; or ~,~, proJect'~ ml terna '.i ~es' .identified tn the SEIR. ,,,The~ are no kno~ mitigation masures'or DroJect alternatives which could substantially reduce water supply~' ~The :~rematntng .:~ unavoidable significant, water ~acts are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth tn the ~StateNnt of Overriding Considerations. H, ',' ".' ,. :: Sends t'::.:: Znteri~last~ater fac( 1 t ty plans reckend 'in the Narch 198g.Wilson report'shall be reviewed and approved by ~the City Engineer prior to any final map approval onsite. Ap royal .~.', ,, ' mayainvolve an agreement reached between the developer an~ City ~tch will dictate how and where sewage ts accomodated.on inkrim basis, and factlt~ financlng.,-,'~... ,/ . -.~ ~a;t;w~te~ 'faci~'it~ pisn' Shall 'be'~ r~<'fewed and' ~pProved :~',:~.~!'~;~;' the City. Engineer. Zmple~ntatton of the ultimate system shall installed7, inca manner and. at the time dictated by. the Engtneer..~Approval~.may involve an agreement reached between.' developer.an4 tCtty~'whlch. wil 1 ,, dictate how, and where sewage accomdated;'and.~fac ltty ,financing and implementation phas(; The (mplementatt6n'~.o.~ these; mitigation measures , and proposed ~lated .,;plans ~wiili~m(ttgate~'.potenttal wastewater proJect';~and cu~laUve effects to an nsigntftcant level. .. r~ation; The ~roSec~ shal~, to the extenL..,. traffic control devices construction and dest -standards: mdsca shade, reduces gl are ~ :'encourage s. s~er breezes, ' dt scourages w( nt.er breezes b b qandscapes tnlmtze reflectlve"ind heat a sot ~ng Rese ve sola _access and Implement passive solar systems g and Hght~ng requ~Pemnts ._~ .- ':'. Znstal] energy.efficient appqhnces ~n refident~al developments 7,~.~.Z,~,~? ~'~' 2- Deonstrate eneP~'conservat~on pPactlces.: - ':, L~ .: ith mplemntat n ;f ' hese mitigation'measures :, potenthl project '.:::;:':.' ~mpacts, to ~ energy~ resouPces, ~fil be mitigated to .a level - of::~'' .;The project, 8s '~(th · an~ ,development, ~111 ~. '~. contribute to a"'cmuqathe, demand"and ~mpact' on non-renewable' ..'~ h ~ ., resburces"~tn t e an Dtego region. :However. Specific .Z, ;:econ~fc, .., soctal, ?or othe~ :, considerations make tnfeastble the ., mlttgatton'~::masures or , pro~ect: alternatives 1dentilled In ,the '.,.;'-: ~ ;:' .~'? SEZR. The re~g unavoidable significant effects are acceptable ',~,~:: .whe~7~iance~ agatnst the. facts set forth'above and In "Statement of Overrld(ng Consfderat~ons." ~'-' .... C trans~tfacfi~ths H.e.. bus stops ons~te}. Should there be a '~';. need fop $uch facades, s~te design shr,11 provide fop sa~d factlttf~ subject to review and approval by the Ctty. Any.' t acts to public transtt servtces w~11 be mitigated by mltlga~n measure to ~ hvel of tnfign(ficance, F h ~ acfi~tt~-s. ~The proJect'applicant s all participate ~n:'a~'.: programs c~eated for financtng of a 11bra~ fac111~ to sere the vtctntty~ as deemed appropriate by the C(ty, A~ 11bra~ facilities effects associated wtth the pro~ect ~11 be mitigated to a level of~.Instgntficance by tmplementatlon of th~s masure, .. .. ... mroJec~':~whtch-avoid or.eliminate the significant identified tn the Final Supplemental EIR, questing that the City approve 9n:' Alternatlve~"whfch. will > reduce significant impacts on service$.:~and,~:utiltttes;:!.tdentified;.tn the Final. Supplemental EIR by }ro~ect design,.~:fina6cin .programs and other~asures identified in the EXR, ~wtth the '~ water supply and ener~ resource impacts, ener~ efficient lights, '. rapacts ,,' ~ ~' energ:~, ~sources ~ ~ 11 '~ be' m~ t~ gated to a 1 eve1 ' $nslgn~ffcahce.~'.~e ~ proJectr:~ as .: with, a~ development. contr(bute:~to~,~;~:.cmulathe ,~d~and:~and ~mpact on non-renewable ener~ :resources~,g~n.~the ~San ,~ D(ego region. ~ Hoover. spec(fic, econom~cm/T~uctal;~?,~'or~:otheP,~ considerations ,make ~nfeas~ble the :.or, pro ect alternat(ves 1denttried. (n the ~g unavoidable s~gnfftcant effects a~ acceptable }alanced ~: agatnst:;~the :~ facts ~ set ~ forth above a~d tn. the ,Stat~nt of Overr~d~n Considerations." , 2 .. plan apptoval. the develope~ : staffi regardtng 1 ocat$ on .~ of ~'~' ~eed '.':for~ s;~ s~te ~:.deslgn: shall ', provide for: sa~d facilities ~lubJect ~o(~rev~ew~.a'nd fapproval byT the C(~, A~:.:j ~ubl(c transit $ervtces ~11 be m~t~gated by:j ~ts mltfgatton measureto a hvel of.Insignificance, sh'all part~Ipate tn an~ programs, ftnz ctng of a 11bPa~ factllty ~se~e the .vlc~nt~as ppPopriate by the Ctty, A~ facilities effects associated ~tth the pro~ect Ntll be'mitigated to .level, of Insignificance'by. ~mphmentatton .of this mltlgatfon ncorp~rated ~ntG;'-':the;proJec~ ~htch avoid oP el~m~ncte the significant,: environmental effects (~enttfied (n the Rnal Supplemental EZR, that the City approve and Alternative which will reduce significant impacts on ~ltc,.s identified in the Final Supplemental EIR by ~roJect design.':<'financtng'programs and other measures identified in the EIR. ltth the exceptionof cumulative and energy resource impacts. IMPACTS TO MITIGATE AN INSIGNIFICANT LEVE~.',."'~ ~GNIFICANT proposel the project is partially: inconsistent with rng. and the. General Plan Update. Specifically. ~Ject::site proposes single-family residential use ~artson .to tgnated employment park and open space uses. :~ >ro4ect'asortgtnally proposed would result"L'~z~.!'- publtcl3 accessible,open. space acreage than designated,on. g }roved~, specificall in the northern project area. The :differe open. space acreage wou~d contribute to a potential cumulative 'effect on the amount o~ ,permanent pen space acreage in the project aream in ~'combtnatton with other pment projects. : MXTIGATXO land uses can be enhanced ementatton of mitigation measures. specifically adherence to regulatory , . T ts and: sen~,~i'V)'~estgn'and ,edge treatment. he follow ng mitigation'. tea.have been incorporated ,into the project which avoid or substanttelly.'~'' .,tried,potential ;iignificant.,environmental effects of the' area o gh-famtly. residential tract ., shall~beredestgned to;,the satisfaction of the City Planntng. DtCeCj;nrjJ2rjEPr tL tentative map approval to provide open space in the site's northern area to the .satisfaction of the City.' The ",,. ,tntent,,of,~the.,redestgnLh. to ensure project consistency with · ulattng documents and to provide onsite open space and buffer at'' esq. (Notet,:See'Alternatives Section V, Alternative. D.; ,.. ',tve will reduce and partially mitigate this p;~.~i;;/stte Pla'~'~'a~'~ landscape plans for the condomintum pruJect'a southern boundary j shall provide for buffering and from and '.. ' transiHnn to emploJm,.;ent~park development to the south/southeast,: 'This m~y t'nclude slol,es,,metbacklm. landscaping techniques, subject >royal.o,~, City Planning Director, .., ' -' : · .:. 'apt ~' (:~;e';,' preclse plans, architectural · evtew, g adtng pemlts, etc,} s'h'ET~ be consistent with applicable EastLake ! PC Regulations {1982) and standards established tn the 1984.SPA Plan,~ Conshtency shall be verified by C~ty approval of ,i; measures'Y, and" langes i tO: the pro~ect have been i'~ncorporated which substantially lessen the significant environmental effects 1denttried in the Final Supplemental EZR,;,~The impact has been reduced to an ,*c?eP, tabh'. 7~pP~p~S~d"the" Design AltePnat~ve,~?The Destgn Alternat4ve ~as 'developed to ~]'~avo~d,,:: reduce:; oP otherher;leSSen the ~. significant environrental effects ~denttfied tn the Draft.:SEZR;~'(ncludtng,'~mong others, the o en space ~Ssues. :~'assoc~ated', N(th.:, the ~proJect~; ~F(nal Supplemental EZR 89-g::confims ~:tnconshtency ~tthop'en space.?desfgnattons can be 'mitigated by 't~o methods; ":.~-~ ;{a) Znc~as(ng'~open>~sace,~acPeage~(n,.the:noPthetn'ppo.~ect area= oP {b).:. : lmple~ntatton of ~tha~es~gn Alternatt~, .~e Deston. Al~ePnat4ve ~ncreaset :L:open space a=~age (14,9 to.18,9 acPes)~and redhtP~butes open space frm the :;central portion of the proJect area to the northern area of the pro~ect, + ,:.,.: ,,. . . ' .'~,:':~",~:~::~,;~As reflected ~ written coments to Draft SEIR 89-5, the project :applfcant also emphasized that,~ $naddt.~ton to the proposed designated open .space, the Design Alternative provides for both pub~{c and prtvate open space :In contrast to the designated emplo~nt uses which only provtded natural open ?~ :~+ ubl~c and private o en. Space,assoc~ated~tth implementation of the ~ltePnatlve.. over ? 5~:;acre$ ~'of.~ properW'~>(oP~48t~' of~.'the pro~ect area) ~constitute$ Open Ip'ace'~ses.~These open:space calculat~oh~ should be ~.~.to .~e 58.3 acres of open space under the designated emplo~nt uses fop the ;' ze Re b" ;pro~ect, ~ ~e 'j public 'and. private '/open 'j.~lpace al so provtde a vhual ' and '.~funct~onal buffer from bufidlng structures-~(th~n the pro~ect area~ and from. ;~restdentta~ developmnt4n the area tO the north of the project stte, '~:~,~:~?-:~' gard~ng?compatt il~ty'of the 'proposed 'proJect ~th surrounding .~land 'uie ~deslgnat~on$i the C~ty finds that the resident(a1 uses proposed by ~:Salt C~eek Z are c~patSble Nfth surrounding areas, Surrounding panels to the south~ southwest and southeast ape developed oP approved fop development~ :'l~nd to the eas~ h currentlybe(ng considered for development as the ::1200-acre Salt Cre~ Ranch Planned Country; land t~' the north h being E~[Constde~d as the 56n ~.lOuel. Ranch develop~nt~ and properties to the ws~ ~11y ~re made up of existing Chula VIsta residential nelghborhoods, The: been planned 4~ the eastern port(on of the area at a General Plan hvel,,'r~As a result~the:'roBd~ayl~,. Open apace and ~nfPastPuctuPe have been ..j. ISlelied ~ that arel as ~e11,~ area of the proJec~,c~n be par~f~lly mitigated by the ~surel':as .se~'forth~;above';,, ~nd by , approwl of, the OesfOn Alternative. AlthoughTstgntftcan~;,~tmpacts'L>::~re,. reduced , by · adoptTon of the Design Alternative. proJec~ and cumulative effects attributabll to the northern specific;economic.. ~Soctal ,,~:. or: o{he~:,: ~nsider~tions make ' tnfe~s~ble othe~ mi~t at~on,,; ~asures ~,¥or,~,: projectS. alternatives ~.', identified tn the Supp~e~n~al ~I R..~ Fo~ ~x~mpl e. ,no~e of the al ~e~n~ti yes. wtth the exceptf on te Y nts t rn,'area to an ~nslgntftcant level. The No Y. · g ~,.,( n the:, northealt area).~ The remaining unavoidable ' gnifl~ant effects are~ acceptable ~hen balanced~against.the fo~tl let ove an~ ~n the ."S~atement of Overriding Consi~erations.,,, ~ ::~,.'.:,,. ,,~,,, ~,-t~ S~gnfffcant: aesthetfc. and ~vtsual ~ ~mpacts.of "the proposed' project ,.;have bee~den~fffed as;a.result. of p~oposed res~denthl development fn the northern.,~area of,.~tbe~proJect,; due ,~to%that area s current open space vfl~al ~ffects resulting from ongotng development in the area surrounding ; a ~2nd.vlsual effocts ~from those .originally 'proposed. In addttfon.- ;he. ~'.',t e'proJect which avoid 'oP','lubltant. hsse~ ,the~:l~gnff~cant effects as ~ ~tdentlfied ~n the final Supplemental EIR: .- , ~ northern ' area lh811 be ; C~ty (refer to Section V.'AltePnatlve D)., The redes~gn shall be ~'~'~, · subject to the approval by the Ci~ Planntn9 %~rectoP~ prOOf tO ~,;~ tenta~tv~ map approval.; ., -- :~e sth plan and landscape plan encompassing the s~te's southeast-, :border (con~o~fn~um p~oJec~) shall delineate special edge tPeament, adjacent to the emplopen~ park uses to the southeast. The plans shall be subject to the acceptance of, the. Ct~ pNoP to stte plan approval .., ,,.~ ......~:,.,, lect'shallcomply With'PC Regulations/Standards. and design criteria, and 'requirements'set. forth tn the lg84 SPA Plan mciflcally Section V.C.3.' page Zl).,compltance subJec~ to prior to final s~e phn approval , , iues, shall, ~nclude~ rounding vertical and horizontal tntersecttons.,oLgraded hnes, '.~ncoPporatfng vattable slope raUos fop larger slope'banks, use of landscaping fop erosf on control and ~g ~,dratnage:~:structuPes ~and othe~ 'measures, Slope banks shall generally not'exceed a 2:3 slope raUo, and shall confom SecUon 15,04,040 and other relevant secUons of the Ctty Gradfng >Utd0or ~3~naUon;Sha11 be d conYotto to lo~-pressuFe?sod~ vapo~ to standardize outdoor ~lthtn the Ct~ of Chula Vhta,. .~, ,33 be fRte~ed,"'d~rected and shh~ded so as mfn~m~ze~ excess ' ~fght~and ': rest~fct upward and re~ecUng Ahol. outdooP, 3tghts;not necessary foF safety shall be turned off~' ~,,' between 11~.m.. and 5 a.m. to the 'extent feasible. (Detailed ~ ;; recomendatlons are pPovfded ~n EZR 84-1, page 3-58, 59. ) . zNDz.ss= ;;; , "- ~.~'j:Durfng~. preparaUon'~'of Draft/~SEZR~ 89-6, the '. Design AlternaUve .' ;,~B'(B~Sf" ~' AlternaUve D, Sectfo~ V)~as develope~ to take into account some Of ~the s~gn~flcant effects=of the proposed proJect, .h ZmplementaUon of the ~r~'parUally reductng,aestheUc and vhua~ effects;'.';~.Zt should be noted that a i;:~cmponent of the aesthet~c:'and visual effect ts attributable to t e p oposed:':~':~:,~:.:.::, San Nfguel Road and ,PPocto~ .Valley Road alignments, 'as ;,requested by the Ct~ 4n ::$cenarfo'~, IV~of~.;the~'" Ge~ePal~ Plan?Update,::;~;~ ThiseT:. road al fgn~nts,. the: ~pro'posed ' SR-125 s;'freeway ~'al ~ gnme~t:'.. and~: the proposed .. extension of East. "H~. ~:~$treet :, Nil1 ~ require :,9radtng,~'~ resul Ung ,. ~n, aestheUc and vhual effects .: ~anUc~pated by .the: Cftyi': but not attr~butabh' to the Salt Creek Z project, [~Landscap~ng: and ~des~gn could,'bin;any;case, minimize t ese~ proposed roa~ "aestheUc. and visual. fmpacts.'~ Landscaptng.~and design ~ould also serve. to ,soften".,the aesthetfc and visual effects resulUng from proposed restdenUal Zn addition, the type and design of the prOPosed development should e c:pared with the existing approved SPA Plan (residential v. employant use$).';:~ Residential ~ development pr. sents an entirely different aesthetic Ippea ancethan~co~rc4~l/lndustrtal development., From a grading standpoint. tooposed proJect; ~ould result 'tn"smaller. varied pads which generally w~,exht(n~ ilopes. as comp.red with the four oP five large co~erchl ~ho~,on. approved SPA Plan ~ (1984 Gradtn9~ Plan). Co~erctal pada i)nlttgate,~.Zn the ' northern site area,: the aesthetic grading effect fs slightly ~g~ater~for the~Salt. Creek I project. due again to the dfffePence ~n acreage ~reta~ned. as~ open :.sp~ce,ln ~ the northern area. ' TMs could be m~ntmlzed retent~on~.of:,some~open space~tn~that. area :as proposed by the Des~ ~: uSe~'~'~:;~e' project p~vtdes adequate 'open space buffed'on the west. southwest': ~,and~s'O~thern borden;.areas,~'End open space areas ~Interlor to the stte..jJhe project ts. also:compatible ~lth City approved ctrculatlon :plans ~tch tm ~re~uce a~s~ettc and.,vtsual::effects to the extent feas{b]e~ however~ project ~eve] op~nt. and Ct ty ~Oadw~'constru~tt On wt ] ] .res u] t t n a pe~anent aesthett :alteration :'of. the: p~oJect ,site and -vtews from' surrounding properties. ~ese :lmpacts~have:"been,~general]y~anttclpated as~;the'~.stte has been previously.. ~Japproved. for. urban ~?deve]op~nt (EIR 84-] and '~enera] Plan Update). - However,~/ ~.the t p~Ject~a~wl]] ,:,~tn ~:the ~ northern~: area, ~ create: unavotdab]e 8esthetta and: vtsual~,effects~ pFevtously],~:unantt~tpa~d~.~< due ~..to .,~. proposed: residential ~:' ~eve]op~nt tn the~~rthern ~roJect 8rea..~. These tmpac~s can be minimized by~ ~pprova] andtmp]e~ntatlonofthe Oestgn'A]ternattve (Alternative Di~ Section' V),~ whtch 'provides more, open':' space ~ located tn the northern 8rea':of,the'.c~:~ proJect,. and ~l additional setback requlre~ntSfor~ SR-]35."~,~ ~ ~.. .: :~lemnt8tton of the Design Alternattve,t project and cumulative effects= from 7' : proposed rest dent181 ~ deve] opinefit ~.~ ( t n ..~> the ~'¢s Ite ' s -~ northern '~ area }¢. {rid. Ct ty roposed; ~8dway altgments .8~'not:reduced to' 81eve] of Insignificance specifiC' econ~tc,'. social ,vand other:considerations'mike ;the~ mtttJatlon~, masu~s ,,. or ~¢proJect ~ 8]ternEttves.,;Jdentlfied .tn ~-the Final Supp] e~ntal~ EIa,:,~;: None :76f ~:~he ~ 8] ternstires ,'. wi th"~the~ except,on ~'of :i the: NO ProJec, A] ternEtl re;,~ wou]d/~educ~ ,the aesthetic 8nd'~t su,]-tmpactsasi6ctate~ With j-the.':northem ~area,~,of~ther~proJect~..to 8nc".tnstgntficant level; . The, ProjeCt:Alternative. hai~bee, ¢~r~jected' bec~use~:'t t :~ does.' not 'Provld;'::~or., Hf guel; Road. and Proctor~ Va]] ~y ~ gold 811 gnment~ ;~" ~u/~ntly ', tdentt fted I n %the CI ~' S' General P] an Upda'te;~The No' ProJect A] te met1 ve 81 so does ~ not addre ss ,the need for houstng~adJacefit:to;emplo~ent uses,~:The ~mltntng sign1 ticant 'effects. Ere ~8cceptib] e when hal anted 898t fist facts 8S set forth':~:'~:'~ :above'andt~ the ."$t8tement of Overriding Conslderattons,",,~.. ~ ~' :, :.., BIOLOGIdAL' RESOU,CE: v p Op se, ~ P~OJ;~:~=::':~u~'~'~'~t various onstt'e' :resou~e ~es~:,Ziological :resources and' an ana]ysls ',of thetr Illustr8 3-7 and of the' Ftnal~ Supplementaq ;..=~: habitat'as ope~~' ~;~e"'Whtch supports populatiOr~, ':of. s'ensltlve,:'pla'nts.:and.'animals,lts also determined to be a significant cumulative effect, of,'the-'proposed project. ' Additional loss of habitat could }occur~;durlng::the~'construction phase,of the project. As such, the project Vr111;~'In'~combt~ation.~,~wtth~:~;other~:~development ~in.,~ the', area, unavoidably 'contribute'.to a'~cumulative,':.Signtfic~'nt incremental lo'ss of biological h&bitat' 'p~e~eFva~i~n~,-:~onstte~:~evegetatto~;'~ landscaping' and ;~retentiOn'..of~ peruanent .onstte'~open:"space.i~the',northern~'~area of '~the. pro~ect..The~e"'mitt ,masure's;~La~d, approval.'~ and. tmplementation~ of .the Design Alternative .. proposes, additional. open space ~ in. the~ nort~est 'area. of the., project) ~:will mttlgate~proJect-speciffc".impacts to a level of (nsigntfic~nce.~..The specific mitigation masures are: presented ,below,~foll~ed by.i ~comendation: egardinS construction tactices and ~ton:~ pen space st corner (Lot 6.45 ~acres' }reservation, of .;, coastal sage scrub onslte shall '~vegeta~d,~ n, ttve~, scrub~specles found in'- the ~tton or~.these a~,as would"'eventually provide some s for. theftCalifornia black-tailed gnat~atcher and reduce 'foP:~'non-native ~l andscaptng ~' material s . invading" natural~ for revegetatton .tnclude the tng: ? F1 at-topped Buckwheat ".~.' ': ~. ' Gol denbush ..~,~ :a California Poppy Luplnus Lupine .: , =:'saS shall 'be.~' y', ,-followed by";a:tackffied.stra~.mulch., Materials, and,' seed mtxes. may. be, changed 'on~y:vtth the approval .'Of the pro~ect olo91st, ~ho shall ,oversee revegetat?on procedures at the expense ~e shall be ~r~gated as needed fo~ year. ~', tn~ accelerate ~;~stab~ ~ shment.- and ~-. coverage. ~ ,~ , Pos~ed~n"','shOuld be'completed ~n the s~P, ft. posstble~ todestabHs~'cove~ pr~or~to:.the rainy season. A number of ann~ ~ecles are~ ~nc~uded ~n ~the h dPoseed 'm~xtuPe to provtde .colo~ slopes~ ' ~ec~es shou~reseed themselves each 'open spaEe~' ~h~' the north-central corner 1',08 ~ acres) :'~f~11 ,, adequately: protect the endangered :on;h g:ns(Ot~v-Tarplant). ,::..,' . . land and,upland habttats and the ~(ldl~fe thePe~n, and to prevent ~datlon ~the habitat durlngand after the construction process. ~o~'~ of habitat could occur .use ,' of.~ heavy,.: equ~pment"~ ~n '.~ ~etland 'areas. on and offs~te. const~u'ctlon'prac~ces re'Sultfng ~n additional ~mpacts to Hetland~ etatfon.~,~ould: ~nc~ase the .total,2; ~etland ~;~mpact acreage.' and ul t~mately. amunt~of m( t~ gatton requ~red.,~Zmpacts' to ~etl and vegetation a~acent to ' ~oul d ~: be reduced ~ adherence~ .certatn construction ~, )nstruct shal 1 ,be ~s~r(cted the, grading; areas?~ to+..~e::' greatest degree :~ fn ' ordeP:~. to ~mpacts to ~etland hab~tatJ~,~Construct~on of cut and' 'tll slopes,.and equipment used for th~sconstruct~on, ~11 be kept dth~n the l~mlts of gradtrig. Prohibited act~v~tles ~n the ~etland"~ =hab(tat tncl~ude staging areas; equipment access~ and: dhposal ot ~ora~ pl~cement,~of.t~excess: flll.~,:~Construct~on l~m~ts and d land ,~habltat:~ shall ~,'be ~ flagged by,C,,a v qual(fie Construction act~v~t~es~shall be monitored by an ons~te ~nspectoP .: (approved by the.~C~ty)~to ensure that gradtrig act(v~ttes do affect~add~t~onal~acreage.~AnY ,unauthorized :,~mpacts cause ~constructl on, operat~ ons ~ ~t 11 ;:~ requ~ Pe that '.~the contractor re~l ace potentially betng' restored at greater than a 1:1 ratton, as deemed :~ ~appropr~ateby and }roJect bfologtst. any portion of ~he s~te '.~;:":~. be grubbed. cleared. l~aded~ hft .~n their natural of the pro~ect,: such as staging;areas; 1 ~m~ts of f~11. no vehlch ~2bnes~ and other appropriate regulations. ~nfomat~on shall be :clearly sho~n on the construction plans and'further ~dentlfted (n the f~eld ons~te ~pP~OP tO comencement ef S~'ad~ng. Contractors shou;d h fully a~aPe of the sensitivities and restrictions ~ ns 'of m~t~gattng significant ~mpacts to ~sources ~ ;ion; of. a system of; open space ~htch' habitat" or senstt~ve~ species tn~ttal step ,tn preservation of the sensttlve';~sour~es~-thereln;L?;~e"tntegrftY"of open space must also be' preserved,;th~ugh adherence to responsible construction pracUces. as outlined ebove~:and the exclusion of certatn acth(tfes. The following recomendaUons" ~.are provided ~n an attempt to m~n~mfze the effects of the. development fn ope~ >ace Ireas:subse~ construcUon acth~Ues: h deeme~"hecessa~. planL speC(ei~:used ~n~:thh a~ea shall: be non~nvas~ve..~'so. as to reduce , vegetaUon. ,,~. Suitable ' species from :~:are lo~. growing. moderately fire-retardant. naUve's such }rostrate~coyote busy (BacchaPts ~fuelbreak~',, ng ~(11, be, allowed habttat. a~as;'~. Zn ~general ;~ the Ll(m~ts: of the fuelbreak ~tl l measured frm- the bu~ 1 df ng pad ~ dth' of. the, fuel break reduced the use tardent spectes pPOJect"~' boundarhs shall not be tP~d or cleared fOP aestheUc purposes.'~ ;pectes Nh(ch presently occuP,ons~te oP are- typtcal foP. the a~ea ;u~table calfforn{ca -~;,,,flat-top. buckSeat. (Er~ogonm. fasclculatum ssp. t ~ black sage ~ (Salvia.. melltfera), and .. San ~unflower ~ (Vigulera ,. lacintata).~. If,: this ~.a~a . ts ~d~seeded,~: masures shall be taken to ensure the exclusion of nonnative, ~e~ .A fence ,or.. other effect~ve~mea~s~:.shall ;'be provided around the natural ~sou~sl., f~..domest~c; pots--and ~human activity An a~ternaUve wuld ,,, be'~,.the ~pl ant]ng~% of ~ barrfer.~ plant ~spec~es that wu~d dhcourage 'pedestr~af~ ~acUvtty% Into open space areas.., A suttab3e ~ectes ~ for barrier ~planttngs,:, ts Dudleya ~ variegate. Nonnatlve ~ectes', ~ould not b(' acceptable" as barrhr,,planttngs w~thtn open ,ace areas.'t~No acUve uses sh&11 be planned {n the open space eas~ents. ~ncludln9 bufidtng structures or construction of trai~s ~ng:arOund"SuHdtngS' sh~11 UUI~e non~nvas~ve exoUc'. spechs c- pPeferably~ nattve plant species found tn the area Spedes present onstte, such mex(ca~a) and Californ~a huck~zheat, ~uld be suitable fop planUng. ChUla Vista shall assure the long-tem conservation rema~n(ng . native habitat ? ons~te {~etlands and uplands} dedfcaUng these areas as part of a peruanent natural.- pen space acreage,~ch.,~ould~eltm~nate further butldtng effect.~'pemanently set th~s area aside for the p~esetvatton of N~ldl(fe. Ty=Addtttonal facilities ~htch ~ould promote pedestrian': acttfity,~n oper space areas at the expense, of ~tldl(fe should const~cted. on' measures: as"-s~t .. forth ~above;, and tcorporated tnto~the project. ~tll mtttg~te project-specific tmpacts :to ah .tnstgnfftcant'hvel;-' ,The~ ~ro3ect wtll .,? nevertheless.,~contP~bute to :an unavo~ dab1 e ~;~/t ncremntal ~2~mul att.ve ?,%. 1 oss ~ of~:~,: bl ol ogt ca1 ~ hab ~ ta~ ~" ~ n: .': the q.~regton.~Specff(c.econ~Ic.~soctal i ~ and o~her :considerations make. tnfeaslblo any oth~ m( t~gattonmasures~ oP,,ptaJect' alternattves, ~dentt fled '(n' the Ftnal '.~$uppqmental;'~ EZR.:~ None'~.of.,,<the:~'alternat~ves.' w~th the: exception of t e No ~;~Pro4ect Alternattv~;'~uld reduce, these (ncremental":cmulattve effects to an ~ ns( ~n( ticant 1 eve1 .'~ The No' Project A1 ternat~ veal so does not account fop the ": C~ty s; proposed alignrenEge, for ~ San: Ntguel Roadh, and Proctor , Valley hRoad. L:~recently ~denttfied tn the Gener~l Plan Update. :, T e biological habttat (n the '-:;northeast area; of= the'project wtll be.Impacted by these General Plan road %:-~allgments,': (n combination wtth the~s~denttal development proposed (n, that Varea.~;~.~ As, a: result.'- sine', tmpact. N'fil .:.: necessarily be caused by the :: road al (gn~nts~ ~htch. ~s outstde of the' control ,. of r the ::' project appl 1cant. "' The ~frematn(ng unavoidable s(gnlftcant effects are' acceptable when :ed agaln %~,~he facts set forth above and.tn the "Statement of Overriding ;~felpo~l~ble foP~ ens~Pt~g that.state and ~e~o~al ~;~achleved.'.~- APCD~s~ cu~rent-~a~P ~qual~tl ~, plan . ts~,Lbased on ~ndlvtdual ,tactics bl'2~h~ch"the San D~ego a~P basin can:met ~ts at;a~ ~ent',~ :goal .~ In the San Diego area.' a p~oJect, ~s con$tdefed~, b~E. definlt~on~' to have a ~s~gn~ficant.~,' cumulative, a(P qualtt~.Jmpact tf ,the; project has.' not. been ~n~luded ~n the SANDAGSe~teI ,V and VI 7growth 'the.haiti fop the alp quIl~ty .attl~men~ $tPategte$,', co~ta~ed, ~ ~the ~$tate Imphmentat~on Plan.". S~nceth~s.pPoJect ~as not ~ncoPpoPated ~n~o' khe ~'adopted a~P q~altt~ atta~e~ 9Po~h forecasts (SANDAG .the~San Diego P89~on~ ~t represents growth that ~a~ ~t co s~de~ed ~hen the :;non-confom~ng use and therefore ts considered to contribute to a cumulattve,~ impact,on the reg~on's atr ,qual~+~ even after ~mplementat~on of ~hase emissions.of several crtter~a atrpollutants ~!11 occur. ". '. . measures have been 1denttried tn the EZR to reduce short-term pollutant emlsstons: fugitive dust .50!percent can be realized by . landscaped. or deveqoped oon. as/'posstble and cas directed by the City to reduce dust hall be proper~y covered.';... be TM enforced on' sstons' control .:shall be uttllzed durtn :compa y approved,SPA Plan, the proposed gnattcn of uses from commerchl/employment and open space to estdent(al and open space.Uses)~vi11 generate less .air pollutants due lower ~trafftc..volumes;c,~.¢.Ho~ever,.~the project was not';tncorporated 'into the.:~ prevlOUsl~ adopted at~'qual try at~talnment growth ,~ forecasts, for.the San region,,'~,A$. a~result~,'a~find(ng of ,pPo:iect.',tnconshtencYtmust, be 'mde.,~:No.~ mi tt gat~ ~n . ~ s ~read~ 1~',~ a~a~ 1 abl e~ t~ -~ offset' ~'th~ s ~ deft nl t~ onal ~: a~ P ' qua1 fty ; tmpact,~desplte'the acthal reduction. ~n a~r'q~al~t~;Ampacts,,because'the r~m(t~gat~O'n measurei oP ,~pP~3e~t'~',alternattves.~,~.The:'~'~ ~ma~n~ng :j ~E~?,'~;;-.~'p,.L,'~C~.'*~". UTZL/TZES~WATER AND' E~ERGY} ";', ~-:":,.'-~-J*~,:"~.~' :: :'., ":-"' voided oP eliminated by ~mplementatton of mitigation ~asures provided ~n "'~F(nal $uppqeme.tal. EZR. ~th the except(on of unm~t~a51e cumulative ~mpacts~.~.. ~.on NateP demand and non-renewable enet~ resources. (See Section ZV~ above.:'.' ,fop ,a dhcuss(on of the C~ty~s ftnd~ng$ regarding all pubHc .uttliths and their (mp~cts~mtt~gat~on measures and fin ngs.} .: ,, .." ~.~ ,'., , 'ANALYSZS AND FZNDZNGS , .... - , .~, ,., "";'l~rOJ~i:t"""'alt~nat~Ve~"'to:l'the"~p';oposed project .ere analyzed and scussed F~nal,-:Supplemntal EiR:89-6., The C~ty Council, havtng reviewed ,:and cons~dered.the',,~nfomatlon contained ~n F(nal Supplemental EZR 89-6 and ~ the~ Pecord,~,, f~nds~,~hat~ F~nal,,; Supplemental ~ [ZR 89-6 has described all reasonable' altometTles t~"the~roJect, oP tOthe location of the pro~ect,',: that could""feaslbly ob~a(n"':the' basic objectives of the roJect, even ~hen" these alternatives mfght ~mpede the attainment of project o~Ject~ves end mfght , more costly.~T~FurtheP;- the C~ Council ,finds that a good faith effort made; to~lncorpGrate ~alt~rnat~ves ;~n the~, preparation of. the E(R and all ~ e alternatives ~ere considered ~n the revte~ process of the EZR.. '. 'n',,.'amendment to pertinent:? ,~ doc~nts~s I~.to,; redeslgnate:~-~.the property~ s~te..from openspace,uses-to residential and open space uses.~i.~ealternatlves evaluated belo~ ~nclude~,~,~,t!) No ProJect AlternativeS:';"',:'~' ~(2}~ Lo~eP..: Density: Alternattvel., (3)H~gh "Densfry- A'iternat~ve; (4) Des(gn ,. 'Alternative: ~ Zncrease¥ Open ~ Space~, and (5) ,Alternative S~te Analysh. ' A arhon.of'Alternattves to the Proposed ProJect" ~s provided ~n Final .Supplemental EiR 89-6.,,. The Sumary t s a concise comparison the s(gnfflcanteffects~,of the project versus effects due to each of the:,.:," prov4ded to foster infomod ' ~n the CEQA process ..... ~' o~:~ 'of' t~e 'Aiternat~ves, ~n EZR. theDesign'Alternative, ~a$ considered to be the "preferred", altomat(re because ~t ~ould avoid or,, reduce significant environmental associated Nith the project ~h~le,'at the same tlme. generally sat(sly project, objectives;-, Zn-th~s sense~r conshtent ~tth the pu~oses of CEQA. the CEQA Guidelines and the C(ty~s Environmental Procedures, after lengthy ~vte~ the.Design Alternative'to ,the ,pro~ect,:h being adopted.as the pro~ect ~'reduce.most of .the s~gnfftcant env(rOnmental effects .~dentffted (n Ftnal.~.~,~ EZl : ,- , E A1 ~ould rematn .designated' ', employant park.- and open Space :;~.~.u,7~', uses. previously approVed SPA Plan effectively eliminates the proJect~s ~mpacts on Open space tnconshtency ~n the northern area of project and ~ould. prov~d~ons~sten~'~th-ex~-st~nr regulating land use ' ;:~:.;'j~ ,. , and considered the "No Development Alte~attva"i , - g no development oneIre. ~h~ch ~as evaluated (n EZRs 81-03 and here~ ~-~rporated by reference and d~sm~ seed from further ,~' ', ,' ~e prop6rty s~te has been planned and previously approved fop urban development. 1'he com~tmept te conve~t the propeP~ to. u~ban use made ~n 1982 N(th the GonePal Plan ~endment and Zoning approval (EZR 81-03).. EIR 81-03 and EZR 84-1 provide sumartes of frtevers~ble changes at a broad comun~l scale.,, For these reasons~ the C(~ Council ,reJects the ~nt documents~However~:'!the No~ ProJect'Alternative does not provide for the ;!~City's proposed'road'.alignments, San.Mlguel Road and Proctor Valley Road (these roads were not incorporated into the previous- ly approved SPA Plan), 'j!:These proposed road alignments are identified as critical for projected City' . '. · i:.development under the General Plan Update, In addition, the project will ~'~!generate:less, traffic!than the designated employment park uses, thus the !!".~proJect Will result tn!a less significant traffic increase than the existing SPA Plan,7 constituting,a , positive project impact, From a cmulattve standpoint,'the proposed project has been incorporated into the traffic and :~;.~ land use projections of .the General Plan Update, L~;',:;;. ,.~.~:"'.L With:re~'~;d~'~o noise impacts, approval and implementation of the ~'~:~proJect, 'would '. generate ,.; less ' traffic and, therefore, less noise than ';~ '~' j;tmplementation of the"existingSPA Plan, Regarding aesthetics and visual dt for uses different ::: impacts, .. the, gra ng proposed restdential presents a .approach~ and: would: result .tn smaller, varied pads,which generally follow ~existtng slopes,.as 'compared,with large comerctal pads, The comercial pads ',.',generally.., result '= tn ;a more ~; severe aesthetic impact which ts also more ;:~difftcult'to mitigate, The No Project Alternative is also considered by'the ~.;pro~ect applicant to be economically infeastble, For all of these reasons, :~the No Project Alternative ts required . ~,~.t~cts very. simtlar ~o the No Project Alternative, with the exception that ~:~slightly lesser reject effects may be created for biological resources and ,Ttrafftc (less tr~S),.,,~' ere may also be a slight reduction In noise and air quality effects, but no~stgntficantly,~ A fire station site could potentially be located tn the southern area under this Alternative, However, mitigation '7~measures have been required, and incomerated into, the project to mitigate or avoid significant concern relating to fire protection services, In addition, ?~l~-densiW residential m~ not be entirely suitable in the southern area ~7;because of its proximity.to major ~oadways and high intensity uses to the ~: south and southeast,: Finally, this Alternative does not satisfy the ~obJecttves of lessening the proJect's overall environmental consequences, For ~ these reasons, the Lower Density Alternative is rejected, L',.~el(ghat~ns tn a~or:;all areas of the property stte would no~ serve to ;~: reduce', or avotd - potential c," stgntflcant . environmental effects beynnd those identified tn Final ~.Sup 1amentel .~ EIR 89-6, Indeed, tmpacts relating to cons~;tency, water quality, biological resources, traffic ~: aesthetics, land use ~';and demand on' public services and uttltths would be greater under this Alternative, For these reasons, the Higher Density Alternative is rejected, 4. ~E DESIGN ALTERNATIVE: During p~paratton of Draft Supplemental ~ EIR 89-6, the Design Alternative was created, after ~dent~f~cat~on of ;~,potentJal s(gnfficant,-effects to the project, to m~n~m~ze the proJect's ~:~ otent~al :sfgnJflcant :effects while st~11 attaining the project objectives. ~:~he DesJgn Alternative provides a ~t~onal acreage of open space tn the, dd northern area of the property sSte. F(nal Supplemental EIR 89-6 provides that "' the,,'~Des~gn ~ Alternative Js ,env(ronmentally superior to the project as~,*~;,:,.' ~,' orJg~nally ,.2roposed and that Jt should be considered ~he "preferred,~j~'~'~".j~ alte~athe. · ' ~- ~. ~,, ".~ -30 - ~?sligh'tq increased :opeW:space~ (14.9 to 18.9 acres) and red~stNbutes open ;~)space from the central.; portton 'of, the s~ngle-famtly residential tract to the ~') north~st corner and, north central - edge. ProJect and cumulatfve ~mpacts ~'attrlbuted to the northern area. of the site are not reduced to a hvel of ~ ~ns~gnlficance.~,: Ho~eveP,'all of the mitigation measures ~dentffJed ~n the EZR ;:~have been ~qu~red ~n. and ~ncorporated ~nto, the project. Specific economic, ~;soc~al~:oP<:otheP,.'considerat(onsmake:~infeastble other unknown m~tlgat(on '.' ~t;:Alternat~ve ~fil reduce those ~mpacts by provtd~ng more open space located ~n " :~the northern a~a'.ofthe property's~te; and by an 'additional setback from :~'SR-15.~: ~e aest et~c and v~sual effects ~111 not. however. be reduced to +~ level of ~nstgn4ftcance.. However,; all of the m4t~gat~on measures ~dent~fied ~j~n the Rnal Supplemental EZR,for, such~mpacts have been required ~n. and ; .,': considerations make "' n easlble. othe~ :unkno~. m~t~gat~on measures or project ~:~eated'tO mtntmtzethe 1denrifled biological resource effects. The Design : ~:Alternatlve p~yl~ f~ mt~ Of proJect-specific adverse ~mpacts to a ;~.~level:of Insignificance. ~The proJect's contrt utton to c~ulattve adverse ~ biological resource effects~:~has.been reduced~ but not to a hvel of ntficance. ~ Hltlgatton ~ measures have, been requffed, and tnco~orated ' proposed proJect.~:In addition, spectfic economic, soclal and othe~ :onstderattons make: tnfeastbh other unknown mitigation measures or project ~ ~fth'::regard ::::to ~;:nohe ;~ effects,~'~ the ' Design AltePnatfve further notse ~mpacts 'by addttfonal development setback requ~remnts SR-125,,~,The mft~gat~on:results~n,reduc~ng ons~te noise effects to a ~ ~'ad~ton of the Destan Alternative;: ': :.:,. · ~=~Alternattve Increases ons~te,open space by four acres, tn locations cfittcal :~: ~;for biologic'a1 resou~e preservation. The adoption of the Design Alternative ~'~ ~reduce$ open space tmpactsiJn combination ~lth tdent~fied mitigation measures ~ ~,'2~T~'/'?~L'~:~ ~fth.~eg~PLt~J~pJcts.on publfc services and utfitttes, the Destgn ¢ Alternative :ttt~ates i~ch ~mpac~sby project design. financing p~ograms and :otheP,,mtt~gatfon mastsras 1denttried ,In the Ftnal Supplemental EIR~ wlth 'the '," exception, of cmulat$ve' waterj~: supply ;'and non-renewable ener~ resources. ,,$pecfffcf:eqonmtcr~soc~al :and~-other~constderatfons make tnfeasible other Ittgatfon masures w(th 'respect to those rematn~n9 cumulative effects. ' ': ANALY: ernat~ve analyzes the potentf al t envlronmenta|~effects If the project were to be bufit at another I ocat~ on:~:~' Numerous ,..1 ocatf ons are' su~ tab1 e for res ~ dent~ al development ~ n the ,eglon;~Each proposed .s~te ~ould have tts o~n unique environrental condfttons Ind conSequences~ConstPuct~on of the's~te at another l ocatton ~ould result tn bome'.stm$laP,~mpacts'.and som ~mpacts unique to another locatfon, %mpacts~":'-"~.~'~ ' olsee~',geolo~b~ol~gy~'land foms and vhual quality ~ould be specific to alternative stte,'selected, ' - nmePous be su~tabh fop of thh ' a~pedfi~ alternative stte (s not le oF ~ .at, thh,.t~m.~;, Therefore~ ~ this alte~ctfve should fPm fur~er,?constderatlon. because, the pPo~ect- site ts develop~nt,~p~posed.,/;tt%,ts,generally consistent, Nfth poltchs, and , use', designer1 ons ,,, I n .. the General .. P1 an Update~. and. ~ t. ~epresents Ice1 ~stdenttal aleyah for .the Ctty of Chula ?.~,.~,.,~. '~'~ ~u~oses findtn ~cord of the and CIty Couhctl~'relatfng t0 apt the Salt Creek Z project Includes. but ts not 3lintted to:~,, ,'~..~,...~,. :~ ..' ~.~;~ · comprised-In that 10995 Au E~R' 83-01 'cePtff~'ed ~' ,,.,,,' ,<..:' .., Resol t~on No, .11918 on aanua~ 2g~ (,'..;qy 1989 ) and: ~1 ated and on Supplemn~l 89-6 and'the Salt g Comisslon and 'Counctl such as::~,~%~,~?,% ~"~, - The C(~y of Chula Vhta General Plan Update (adopted~ aul~ of_ of Chula Vhta~ as a~nded of Chula Vhta; as amended ~ollctes'~nd Ordinances Itholo. 1983; Checklist of North AmrtCan,. Btrds~:~, 6th .Edition. ~, American Ornithological Union. [Washington. '. D.C.]. ' ' ~!::..:! :::;: . distribution of. the California black~tat1( natcatcher;! Hestern Birds 11:65-78. : geographic varht~on ~n :black-t~led:g~ O~n~tholog~cal~4onograph 42. 74 pp. River Press 1985,. Desfgna~d/ endangered:or ~e ReSources Agenc~;~aune 19, . . ..: Chula. ent of Gene~al Element V~ sta P1 an .... '~' Policy Plan, I Council Resolut$on No,~10996~ Septera :: Coun~ 'of San nt (Pa general, Plannlng Deparment. GPA-80-61."~;~ hi, ~htc: correlations of :the Ot~. Fomatlon EastLake,,.~,San Die, ~=~",Caltfornla.:.;2: In Fihwtcz. 2Squires..,R.- L:, ( c ~' PaleoCene Stratigrapt." West Coast of Nor~ ~erica. Pacific Section .~ S.E.P.M. m' West. Cast Pal eogene S~poslm 21:":' EVeret~;.;:W.T;:'~1979.</~reat'ened. declln~'n~ and sensitive species tn San Diego County.~ San Diego Audubon Society. Sketches. Prediction ~del (FHWk-RD-77-108). Dece~er. : .33-': ' % ital concern llst:l an g or ./vulnerable birds in California. Western ,~Fteldt~!Ornithologist.,i~ Museum r of~ Vertebrate 2oolo Uni versl y o f Cal I fornt a. Berkeley.~, .... series 6 Regional Growth FOrecasts. lg80-2000.' ~Draft Series 7 Regional Growth Forecasts. '- Traffic Generators~n~:~'~i~Uly~~ ~ Survey and 'status of endangered and th~atene,d species of reptiles nattyely occurring~ Lln San Diego County.'~ Prepared for Fish and Wildlife C~ittee~ San and tire Plant Society.'~ 'Of rare and vaseula~ ~lant~of Calffornta~'~: California Native Plant: .":7 '~.~;"~'~ ~'Blue List for.1982. 1986~," ~rfcan B~'rds ered and :~thNatoned wildlife and plants: ~;Revtew of plant taxa for listing' .s~'~ as endangered or threatened ~,lpecies~ Notice, of revi~i Federal ~ Register, 50(188):39526-39527~Sept~ber 27,:;.:: '.. ' . ' /::.': '~ .~ ~,;',.47~L~/U.S. Envir~al' Pro~e~ion~ ~genCy, compilation of Air Pollution ' .. ', ~, ~, Emission Factors.,AP-42, SuppleNnt 7. ~ . · . .~:Weaver K.~ 1989,~Personal co~unlCaUon to Patrick Mock, April., ,, 49.~'WESTEC' S~'~Ce'~J~'~i~'~'~Tg:~'~ron. ntal Alsessment:Higuel to''~ TUuana Interconnection Project 230 KVTransmi~ston Line. P~ .:~ .,~L~,~,~ for Sen O~ego Gas ap~ Electric C~,September. ·, 1980.',~ ~am~c~a~Basin Waste Waf~r Reclamation"" Project: .Phase 11 .EXp~st~n~ Prepared for Otay Huntctpal Water District :~ ~:G'. ,~: ' ;~' ~ ~S~C e;'EZR,~Append~x A. Biological ~ survU report, ~d for Ct~ of Chula VIsta, ~ ..".": g(cal su~ey ~port of the Singing' '= Hills' Specific Plan, ~G(nty Hounta(nt San Diego, California. PNpa~d for HaGin~ Ranch General Plan Partnership, San Diego Caltfornlm, F ':' '~ ;:~ ' , ' -35- .:STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CO~SIDERATIONS ~"" '~"~!~'Lii: balance' the benefits of ; .. ~ proposed project 'agatnst tts unavotdabh environmental risks In determining whether to approve the proJect.'.:~,,Zf the benefits of a propose¢ ~roJect. outwelgh,; the unavoldable~' adverse environmental '~" 'adverse envtronmental ;.elf.acts. may~ be considered ." agency occu~nce of significant effects ~htch are 1dentfiled tn the final EZR but .are not at hast substantially mtttgated~.the agency shall state ~.. In .writing the~speclfic~reasons to ,support,Its actton based on ftnal;~ EZR[and/or.~other ,, tnfomatlon In-~the record. /stat~ent:may be'~necessary:~f the agency also makes a ftndtn9 under Section 15091(a)(2) oP (a)(3).~. ~,:,,~. ~n age~c/~ke~'~'itate~'nt'of overriding considerations. the:-statemnt~.should be included'In the record of the project ~val and should be mntloned In the Nottce of Detemtnatton." il 5093. :igat~o~ masures discussed ~n t~e '~mp~ted.'%avoJd'oP,,~lubstant~ally lessen rest of the T ':itgnffJcant effects~de~t~fied ~n FJ.~I '$upph~ntal [IR-89-6. Nonethelesl~.'( {.' carts4 n ~ s4 gnt fl cant ~r effectl .~ of ;~:, the ~ proJ act ~, are,~ unavo4 dab1 e even , If tiP ~.~;, ~(nco~oPat~on of all 'feis~ble~mJtlgatton measurel~v ..These.include: land use-c,,'; : consfs~nc~. ' aestheticS,, end ~;~'vhual .; resources ;~ an~": cmulat(ve .. ~acts. on ~'-'j. ~' pemanent open space~blolog~cal resourcesl, a~P quit iLl. w~Lcr ~ppi;~ i~ ": non-reneNable~~ces.-~-Ntth ~gard to'.these.~mpacts~ the Ci~ has ' balanced .the benefits,of the p~oJect aga(nst the unavo~dabh env~nmntal ~rhks ~n appPovJng the $ilt Creek Z project. In thh regard~ the CJ~ finds u 'that all'feas~bqe mJtJgat(on meas res (dentffhd ~n the CEQA findJngs~ have ~:been'and ~tll be tmplemnted ~ith the proJect~ and an7 significant r~alning unavoidable ef.r:ctf are acceptable due to the foll~tng specfftc econ~tc, ~ social or other c~n~IdePattons, based upon the facts set forth halo,, tn the " d . CEQA fin tngs, (n FInal Supplemental aIR-89-6 and ~n the record of the e constderit(on oF thh project, as follows: .~ h conshtent ~th the demand fop gro~ng comunlt~, of, Chula Vhta. ~tth the adoption of the Alternatfve.,as the proJect~ the C~ty belhves that the aPp~l - :.~', !en ~' env and the need balanced.!;logicai.festdenthl development .In the Chula Vfsta community. :~m~x.of ' s~ngle~and;mult~-fam~ly.: uses~':Jn:close proximity to suf~undfng ~com~c~aq/emplO~ent'park uses .~n" the EastLake eus~ness Center. portions of i;~tch are no~ built or under construction. provlde opportunities fop persons :to reside (n areas a~acent to planned emplo~ent factl~ths and. thus~ reduce frelated traffic., no~se and a~r quality ~mpacts.'~; Znadd~t~on~ the project ~11 lprov~de 55 res~denthl; un~ts.oflo~ and moderate tncome housfng. The I N(11 therefore~ address lnc~as~ng+demand fo~ housing ~n the project area and ~i~o ~'cons~dered; to.have:an~ns~gn(f~c~nt';~;tmPaCt on':~sufround~ng properties; because the area~' has been 1 armed and evaquated: ~n the General .Plan Update.~ Surrounding propert(es~to~t~e south.'southwest; and Southeast are' developed app~ved fop devel o ent~ ~1 and to ~ the east- ~ s 'currently be( ng considered develo~nt as~the ~00 acre Salt Creek,Ranch, Planned Comuntty~ land to;the" nOPth~i being cons~defed'astheSan N~guel, Ranch development~ and properties. to ~,the ~ west :generally.~are ~' reader. up .~ o~.~ex(st~ng Chula Vista resfdenthl 'ne~ghborhood$;,,~,~Even~the area~planned'~n~::the Eastern Territories A~a Plan ~:to~ long-tern, ~s~den~al ,; uS~',~ ~.the~ site ~has; been - planned and previously ;'~;~hs fop.the,long-tern p~oduct~v~W'oe,the C~tY and the '~reg~on. and mMnta~ns and conserves valuable resou~es~' the C~ty further ;that the project ~s ~n conromance ~th the long-tem planMng goals of the' C~W of Chula V~sta., proposed ~oad al ~gnment$ such as San N~guel, Road and P~octof Valle Road that are pursuant to C~ty d(~ctfon and reflected tn the: General. Plan ;El~nt Upda~;~ Other roa~'.(mpFovemnts ~ncqude:';:'~' (al~ the oxtens(on ;~'Eas~ "H" .Steer; ~lch h.class(f(ed as a 4-lane maJor'Street and 6-lane pP~me~ ~'aP~r~al': :traversing ,' through ~. the ~:~pro~ect:: s~te~ ,. and ~= (b}. the. dedication r~ght-of~ fop the proposed State Route {"SR"} 125 ffe~ extension the Iouthwest boundary of the project stte.~Proposed roadways ons(te ,rox~mately 38 acres~"~as ~opposed, to only .' about ;30 acres on y approved SPA Plan.k~' ~ ~,~,~;,~ ,,. '~,'~ >,-;j ~ ~' 'regard to aesthetics and v~;ual resoufc.~s. the grading of the,~.:: ct p~=entl a positive ~mpact due to smaller. vatled pads that generally ~ollo~ existing slopes.. as: compared w~th large comefc~al pads. allo ~$ult ~n a ~Pe sewre aesthetic impact wMch ~s more d~ff~cult to Frm I ,,the~efofe~ ~sldentlal gradlng ell. seve~ impact on ' _, .. ,, resources.~:,the Design ~rovfdes for m~t~gatlon of.pro;lect-specff(c adverse b~olog~cal effects to a eve1 ~o' tnstgntficance~,. For example~ ~. the ~ Design Alternatfve proposes Dpen. space~.tn:~.the northwestern ~ area of the project s~te whtch for p~servatlon of coastal sage scrub habitat. The only r~atnlng }~o~ect~s contr~Sutlon to cmulat~ve biological resource, Peg pro~ect actually represents a~ ~mpact ~, by ,~ generating ~ less, traffic than the prevfously approved ~plo~ent park Use$;::~ Further~ from a cumulative standpoint. the pto~ect been,tnco~oPated ~nto the tPafffc and land use projections of the General. P1 an Update..:;., Additional, proposed roa~ays ~dentt lied as critical to serve p~4ected City develo~ent (~n the General'Plan Update traff~c.pPo~ect~ons ~a~no~ ~ncluded ~n the p~Ject desfgn.~ Spectf~cally~ San Hfguel Road and P~ctoP. Valley Road have been added to the proposed s~te design pursuant to' Ci~ dfPect~on.~.These proposed road alignments ~ere not fncorpoPated tn the Pev~ously approved SPA Plan.,~ Related notse and,alP' quality ~mpacts a~ also ~ess slgnff~cant because,,of the, generation of. hss tPafftc from ~sldentfal' usese' as cmpared ~tth the previously approved emplo~nt park uses. ~ ~ ~? ~,."~. 8.:~i~:Regard~ng open'spac(uses;:the' Des~g~ "Alternat~ncreases ;open Ipace~by four-acPe$~;tn 'the=northern area of the pro~ect' s~te. Destgn Alte~n6the.also provides fop "ppfvate open space ~n the Pes~dentfal areas of- the pro~oct~ that ~t11, be used by residents for ~creat~onal purposes;~'~Tak~ng ~nto ~ccount. the public and pPfvate open space uses. over acres of property (or 485 of the p~ect area) constitutes open space' uses;:~: ~.The pubHc and private open space a15o provfdea vtsual and functional buffer publ(c benefits.., ~e project. provides 55: units of Jow'and moderate ~ncom housfng.-~;, The ". p~4ect, provides ,'over ~: 23 ~ acres ~"of~:~- ~per~..: dedicated sult tn the extension gf tast~H", Street tn the project area.~hlch ~gtonally significant du~to fts"class~f~catlon as a major street and prfme arterial, and ~ts eventual connection to the. proposed SR-125, free~. ..'extens$on.'. Other p~oJect benefits lnclude,a comtment from the'~roJect., '" applicant fdr a one acre offsite location fop a ne~ fire ttatton; e .ta,qdW .. :c~nt to participate ~n a funding program to c:'eate a n~ libra~ .' f~c(lfty= and a co~,Ament at the s~te plan-hvel to fncorporate b~ke~ays,.~ "' :tra,ls and tra~l connections to adjacent areas such as Salt Creek Ranch and tas~ake Busthess Park. ~IOC'{il and' econmlc considerations resulting from thh pro~ect that sere to and outweigh. the proJectt~ unavoidable slgnlftcant environmental effectl. ~ ~,